Monday, April 03, 2006

Why did Basic Instinct 2 crash at the box office?

The last time "Basic Instinct" man-eater Catherine Tramell prowled the big screen, the studio erotic thriller was hitting box office heights. The first "Instinct" took the top spot when it debuted in 1992, with an opening weekend of $15.1 million, the equivalent of $20.45 million in today's dollars.

By comparison, "Basic Instinct 2" limped into 10th place upon its arrival this weekend, grossing just $3.2 million.

The article drifts into left wing lunacy in trying to explain those facts:

Paul Verhoeven, director of the first "Basic Instinct" (which scored $353 million worldwide) as well as the widely ridiculed "Showgirls" (now regarded as something of a camp classic), attributes the genre's demise to the current American political climate. "Anything that is erotic has been banned in the United States," said the Dutch native. "Look at the people at the top (of the government). We are living under a government that is constantly hammering out Christian values. And Christianity and sex have never been good friends."

Scribe Nicholas Meyer, who was an uncredited writer on 1987's seminal sex-fueled cautionary tale "Fatal Attraction," agrees, noting that the genre's downfall coincides with the ascent of the conservative political movement.

"We're in a big puritanical mode," he said. "Now, it's like the McCarthy era, except it's not 'Are you a communist?' but 'Have you ever put sex in a movie?'"

I wonder if Verhoeven has ever visited the United States. How did he come to the conclusion that "Anything that is erotic has been banned in the United States?" I would go so far as to say the truth of why the movie didn't attract viewers is actually the opposite of his contention. There is so much erotica available that the thought of a little nudity on the screen wasn't enough to convince people to fork over 10 dollars to watch it in a theater when they'll be able to rent it for a couple dollars in a few months. Another reason less people are watching the sequel might be the fact that the lead actress is 48 years old. 48! I could be wrong, but my guess is most people interested in watching erotic films prefer the "actress" be closer in age to 20 than 50.

1 Comments:

If he had found a way to get Jessica Alba, or any one of the dozens of 20 or 30 something hotties on TV today to play in this movie it might have sold better. However, a near 50 Sharon Stone isn't exactly the stuff wet dreams are made of.

When you screw up the script and casting, the easy way out is to blame "family values".